With the Apple v. Samsung patent trial underway, Apple is making its case that Samsung's phones and tablets are ripoffs of the iPhone and iPad. We’ve had extensive coverage of the testimony from our reporter in the courthouse, and we got our hands on some of the trial exhibits Apple is showing the jury.

As the plaintiff, Apple has steered the direction of the early parts of the trial. We’ll get to hear more from Samsung next week when it makes its defense. In the meantime, let’s look at some of the exhibits Apple has either shown the jury or submitted into the case's official record. These include side-by-side comparisons of Samsung and Apple devices, internal planning documents in which Samsung discusses features that are a bit too similar to the iPhone, and an Apple analysis of user interface features that allegedly violate Apple patents.

Samsung phones, before and after the iPhone

The above graphic requires little explanation. Apple is showing the jury that once the iPhone hit the market, Samsung’s designs started looking progressively more iPhone-like. After the January 2007 announcement of the iPhone, Samsung started pushing out its own touchscreen phones lacking a keyboard, as you can see in the next part of the trial exhibit:

None of the phones Apple shows from 2008 or 2009 could really be mistaken for an iPhone, but the Samsung models start resembling the iPhone a lot more in 2010 and 2011. The evidence Apple presents is in the picture at the top of this article.

Most people familiar with smartphones will see that those Samsung devices aren’t iPhones, since they include the familiar Android buttons at the bottom rather than a single home button. While Apple is showing Samsung products that hit the market after the iPhone launched, Samsung has evidence demonstrating that it was working on similar designs before the iPhone existed. Some of this evidence was ruled inadmissible because it was submitted too late in the legal process. But not all of Samsung's evidence was ruled out, as this exhibit in the case's official record shows:

Samsung tablets, before and after the iPad

Apple has argued that the Galaxy Tab's shape and look is too similar to the iPad to be a simple coincidence. Notably, the exhibit also includes Samsung's 7-inch Galaxy Tab, which is much too small to be confused with an iPad. The iPad has always been of the larger variety, but Apple is rumored to be building its own 7-inch tablet, and the Apple v. Samsung trial has made public more evidence that a 7-inch iPad is indeed in the works.

Samsung app icons "awkward," look like iPhone copies

The mere fact that Samsung phones and tablets are roughly the same size and shape as the iPhone or iPad likely isn't enough to win a big judgment for Apple. But Cupertino has other evidence, including a lengthy internal Samsung evaluation from March 2010 comparing the S1 to the iPhone. The document recommends changes in the user interface to reduce the impression that icon design was copied from iOS.

The Samsung planning document shows a comparison between the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S (or GT-I9000). It compares the Samsung device unfavorably to the iPhone, saying the iPhone's application icons are designed to "represent their functionalities" while Samsung's are "awkward" and cause confusion regarding each application's utility. The slide recommends changes to make the Samsung design more appealing, but doesn't specifically instruct Samsung to copy iPhone design techniques.

As you can see, the internal Samsung document presented at trial by Apple says the Samsung phone provides a "strong impression that iPhone's icon concept was copied." The "directions for improvement" are that Samsung designers should "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design."

Samsung phones v. Apple patents

In addition to those internal Samsung documents, Apple has presented its own analysis of how Samsung's user interfaces mimic the iPhone and allegedly infringe Apple patents. For example, this is one of a series of exhibits comparing Samsung devices to Apple's "trade dress" and designs covered in an Apple design patent:

The Apple graphics go on to show a dozen or so Samsung phones, all with nearly identical user interfaces. To demonstrate that there is more than one way to design a touchscreen interface, Apple presented some of the competitors' home screens. These screens are different enough to not violate Apple's IP, in the company's view:

Apple's analysis of how Samsung tablets violate its patent describes at least one feature that anyone who uses a smartphone or tablet probably takes for granted: adjustment of scrolling speed in response to the speed of a user's finger movement. Doing it any other way would seem ridiculous, but Apple says Samsung has violated its patent by scrolling documents at a speed that is "essentially the same as the speed with which the user's finger moves." This graphic actually refers to the same patent covering the list feature, but focuses on a different claim:

The patent, covering 'List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touchscreen display," was filed for in December 2007 and awarded to Apple in December 2008.

We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place. Samsung strategy officer Justin Denison has already called the notion that Samsung copied Apple designs "offensive"—although Apple lawyers forced him to explain an e-mail he sent to Samsung employees criticizing them for not making user interfaces as attractive as Apple's.

There's a break in the trial today and tomorrow, and testimony will resume Friday. Get your popcorn ready.

600 Reader Comments

Honestly, I have to give this a giant "so what?" The physical design of the phones and the fact that some of the icons are similar... Who cares?

These are totally different devices with completely different operating systems and software. Desktop computers circa 1999 all looked the same too, but you wouldn't mix up a Mac with a Windows PC after using it for 30 seconds would you?

Apple's fanatic and dictatorial obsession intellectual property control doesn't help consumers or the industry. It only helps Apple's army of lawyers.

"We'll have to assume Samsung will argue this is obvious functionality that should never have been patented in the first place." But it was, and it should. Apple made it the right way.

The competition should be focusing in new and great ideas, not copying what the other did successfully

Personally I would put that in the trivial category although I'm assuming something like it already existed. The iPhone had a way of making everything it did seem obvious so I may be wrong there.

But the home screen seems like a pretty clear case to me. Although I remain unclear on law here (as if anyone is clear). But from my perspective if patents/IP are worth anything at all they should be able stop someone from entirely ripping off the look and feel of your major product. Technical details are in some ways trickier but here, what right minded person can argue that Samsung didn't just make the decision to rip off look wholesale? Even Microsoft managed to develop an entirely different look and feel.

A lot of the phone designs is based around things such as cost/size of screens, batteries, etc. It is more a function of the cost/availability of technology available in the market, not some designer's whim. Why would samsung unnecessarily increase the cost of their device to have manufacturing facilities retool to make more costly parts for no benefit other than looks rather than buy the standard offerings for much cheaper? You think samsung wouldn't make it's phone a foldable/bendable piece of touchscreen OLED plastic including battery if it could? Sheesh.

There is a large report (132 pages) just released that is pretty damning of Samsung.

"Authored by Samsung’s product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone."

The default is that copying should be allowed. When copying is to be disallowed the bar for granting "ownership" over an invention should be a pretty high one. The point is not to create virtual property but to encourage the disclosure of inventions.

COPYING is the ultimate intended goal of the patent system.

Patents are a means to that end. They are supposed to encourage the disclosure of inventions that would otherwise remain trade secrets.

Agreed. What would have happened if this were hung up in court due to 'design'?

How many manufactures jumped on board with this, with minor variation, because it was an obvious step forward in the evolution of telecommunications? If everyone was sued into oblivion in the original design, where would we be now? Apple is being ridiculous and I personally want nothing to do with their products now on principle alone.

I would just like about one aspect of the discussions sparked by this trial that really bothers me. I’m growing sick and tired of people behaving as if ideas, technical discoveries or fashion designs are born in a vacuum of a single clearly identifiable mind.

Why are we capable of telling within seconds whether a car, a pair of pants, a stereo or even a music track is from the 60’s, the 70’s or the 80’s? Because they share common design patterns that are distinctive from those areas: it’s called fashion. Building something fashionable means inspiring yourself from the peers of your time but it doesn’t in any way signify that you are copying. Certainly note in any kind of legal way.

Moreover, people need to realize just a bit more that the immense majority of our ideas are the product of our times, our upbringing and the world we live in. Newton and Leibnitz both inventing calculus at the same time is not a coincidence, it means that considering the level of advancement in mathematics and the problems that mostly preoccupied scientists at the time calculus was bound to be discovered soon. Discoveries never come from a blank slate, there is always prior art, a specific context and so on, they are way more important to the innovation process than people give them credit for.

As much as I loathe the whole Apple vs. Android patent debacle, I have to admit that Samsung did appear to try and copy iOS' appearance with their godawful Touchwiz interface.

Seems like doing away with Touchwiz would've made Apple (and even Samsung's own customers) happier. Personally, the first thing I did when I got my Samsung Infuse was install a different launcher. Not to mention, the space taken up by Touchwiz was their excuse for not offering more modern versions of Android for many phones.

First things first, I'm glad this news story came along to finally supplant the dying throes of Charles Carreon's 15 minutes of notoriety. I was beginning to feel he was to the tech world what Paris Hilton was to the celebrity gossip realm circa a few years ago. Yeah, I said it - Charles Carreon is the nerd's Paris Hilton.

That being said, it's hard for me to have strong opinions about this case. In sum, it's rather like watching two extremely wealthy people go toe-to-toe over justifying a bonus or a raise. I can't see the effect it'll have on me, so beyond a passing interest, it's hard to care. Besides which, if Apple wins this case but can't seal the holes in its privacy routines as was recently exposed on Wired, it'll be something of a Pyrrhic victory.

It's interesting that no other Android phones were shown in the exhibits. Apple was careful to only show different OS devices. Also interesting that they didn't show Windows Phone which is a huge departure.

The grid of icons is a hard one. Apple didn't invent a grid with icons to represent applications. Even the pictoral representations of the apps is a stretch.

While I do think some careful copying was in play, I'm not sure it represents the transgression Apple claims. I do feel the Galaxy Tablets do look an awful lot like iPads but I'm not sure someone would confuse the two as Apple's logo is so iconic. Who would believe it was an iPad upon seeing the package and no Apple logo?

Apple has some strong evidence mixed in with some very weak evidence. If I was on the jury I would find the weak evidence lowering my belief in the guilt of Samsung despite the strong evidence.

Yeah, the shot of samsung models pre iphone (the i730) shows them moving to a black from with a bright ring around the edge (though only on 3 sides.) The fact that a 2005 phone had an external antenna and a 2007 phone doesn't is more just general industry trends.

The icons are the thing that looks very similar imo, but surely the samsung lawyers could have found some prior art. People had been skinning WinPhone and even Palm phones for years before the iphone came out, there must have been something similar.

At least Microsoft is taking the risk, not like Samesung apple wanna be.

Samesung... Really?

Have you even used Android? The experience is totally different from iOS. Don't be such a fanboi just because Apple tried to patent "flat square phone with icons on screen."

I find it strange that the "obvious" design of the iPhone "rounded rectangle with grid of icons" or "flat square phone with icons on the screen" was enough to (to quote Samsung) cause "A crisis of design" at Samsung, and that the difference in UI is (again, according to Samsung) "difference between Heaven and Earth."... How can that be if Apple's design was so obvious and too unremarkable to warrant patent-protection?

And let's not remember that Samsung named their Blackberry-clone "Blackjack"... Oh Samsung, you are so adorable.

Clarification please. There is so much hate going both ways on this that I'm not sure what you are alluding to here. If you mean to imply that Apple copied XEROX then let me remind you that in that case Apple copied something that:

A) Was not in productionB) Was NEVER going to be in production and was actually getting mothballed

This court case is about getting a verdict to prevent Samsung from cloning massively popular and *shipping* consumer devices now and into the future. From Samsung's own documentation we see that consumers were returning units because they were thought to be iPads.

When Apple released the first Mac, not a single person on the planet confused the Macintosh with a XEROX park prototype because they simply did not exist outside of Parc's basement lab.

This is Apple playing the game as it currently exists. Were roles reversed, does anyone think Samsung would just 'let it be'?

If you do, you're not that bright or have way too much faith in your fellow man and his patents.

In all the years i have yet to read about Samsung (or any other) suing the others over the basics of candybars, flips or anything else. If there was a patent suit it was about stuff like antenna design and other engineering topics.

Honestly, I have to give this a giant "so what?" The physical design of the phones and the fact that some of the icons are similar... Who cares?

These are totally different devices with completely different operating systems and software. Desktop computers circa 1999 all looked the same too, but you wouldn't mix up a Mac with a Windows PC after using it for 30 seconds would you?

Apple's fanatic and dictatorial obsession intellectual property control doesn't help consumers or the industry. It only helps Apple's army of lawyers.

I think the question, from Apple's point of view, is this: is it really worth spending years of testing and refinement creating this stuff, if others just get a free ride on your tail. The argument that this stuff is obvious is bullshit - if it was obvious, why didn't someone do it before? If it was obvious, why did it take Apple 3 years to design and build the first iPhone?

Why is history full of examples of creativity in one part of the world being ripped off and cloned in another cheaper part of the world? Ask the pharmaceutical industry the same question.

The problem that they point out is that all phones look similar. They all are a square device with rounded edges, big screen, earpiece on top, mouthpiece on the bottom. Its less that everyone is copying each other but rather the definition on what a phone should look like has become, all most forcefully, standardized. This standardization has been pushed in by operating systems' necessities. There have been a few isolated incidents where this is not the case like the Kyocera Echo which, let's be honest, failed miserably.

If I was a phone manufacturer I would be terrified every time I released a phone. Even if I completely avoided the "iphone design" I would still probably get slapped with a lawsuit saying how using a background for the lock screen violates Apple patents. Even worse, getting a judge that obviously does not care (or know) about technology enough to make the a fair battle or is an iphone user ensuring a one-sided victory.

It's interesting that no other Android phones were shown in the exhibits. Apple was careful to only show different OS devices. Also interesting that they didn't show Windows Phone which is a huge departure.

The grid of icons is a hard one. Apple didn't invent a grid with icons to represent applications. Even the pictoral representations of the apps is a stretch.

While I do think some careful copying was in play, I'm not sure it represents the transgression Apple claims. I do feel the Galaxy Tablets do look an awful lot like iPads but I'm not sure someone would confuse the two as Apple's logo is so iconic. Who would believe it was an iPad upon seeing the package and no Apple logo?

Apple showed three phones with a grid of icons but none of them infringe.

Apple has some strong evidence mixed in with some very weak evidence. If I was on the jury I would find the weak evidence lowering my belief in the guilt of Samsung despite the strong evidence.

Yeah I see the same thing. Looking at those pictures of the evolution of Samsung phones the i830 looks very iPhone like if you chop off the antenna. Something which based on the progression of phones (see the Blackjack with no antenna) seems very likely in the next iteration of the design.

Similarly the claims about rounded and colorful icons with a mix of styles seems wholly unconvincing but looking at specific icons there is clearly some influence if not outright copying there.

It's interesting that no other Android phones were shown in the exhibits. Apple was careful to only show different OS devices.

The Meizu device runs MIUI, which is Android. Their big thing is they strip out all of the Google apps though (you get Baidu search, maps, etc). So maybe Apple likes them since they're just a leach to Google? Or maybe because it's a Chinese company and they have no hopes of suing.